Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Dec 2001 by Rabindra N Kanungo

The altruistic concern of leaders can be manifested in two principal ways. One, leaders can combine their altruistic concern with a concern for their own self-interest. In such a case, the resulting motive can be called utilitarian or mutual altruism. The motivational force of utilitarian altruism stems from an expectation that the leader's behaviour will lead to mutually beneficial consequences. The other manifestation is the leader's helping concern for others, which is prompted by a sense of duty toward others without any regard for self-interest. Often such duty-based helping concern causes considerable personal sacrifice or inconvenience to the leader. While acting out of a sense of duty, the leader is prepared to suffer the harmful consequences for him/her self. Sometimes, the leader knowingly causes harm to him/her self, a strategic move that convinces others of the leader's unbending commitment to the organizational objectives. Uncompromising fast by Mahatma Gandhi to end violence in political agitations is a good example of such behaviour. The motive behind such behaviour can be categorized as genuine or moral altruism. These two forms of altruism, as distinguished from egotistic intent, are presented in Figure 2 (Kanungo & Conger, 1993).

The moral justification for transactional influence strategies is derived primarily from the mutual altruistic motive. In this mode of influence, transactional leaders use the power of their position or office, and rewards and sanctions under their control, to get followers to perform the required behaviour and demonstrate the desired commitment and loyalty. The leaders serve their personal interest (gain in power, status, material benefits) by making followers exhibit compliance behaviours and attitudes. Followers comply in order to gain valued rewards and to avoid possible sanctions from leaders in authority positions. Thus, both parties benefit from the transactional mode of influence used by the leader. According to teleological ethics, the final outcomes of mutual benefits resulting from the mutual altruistic motive and actions of the leader will be considered as ethical. However, the transactional mode of influence can be unethical if the leaders satisfy only their personal or egotistic interests (with the exclusion of followers' interests) by making followers act like programmed robots.

The transformational influence strategies of a leader derive their moral justification from the moral altruistic motive. In the transformational mode, the leader's objective is to change the followers' core attitudes and values consistent with the leader's vision for the organization. The leader strives towards a "consensus on ends" not by imposing his/her vision on the followers by coercion, but rather by creating an environment in which the followers can choose for themselves whether to subscribe to the vision. In fact, as Conger and Kanungo (1998) point out, a leader's vision "must represent a shared perspective. To achieve this shared perspective, the leader articulates the vision by anchoring it in a set of deeply held values" of the followers (p. 195). This helps the followers to see the vision as a reflection of their own values rather than as an imposition from outside. Furthermore, the leader uses empowering strategies to increase followers' self-efficacy beliefs and their capacity for self-determination. The influence processes in the transformational mode are designed by the leader to increase the followers' self-- growth, enhance their self-worth, and enable them to function as autonomous persons contributing to the achievement of organizational objectives. This is often achieved through considerable risk and self-sacrifice on the part of the leader. From a deontological perspective the leader's moral altruistic motive is the manifestation of a sense of duty or obligation toward the followers.